APPENDIX F Summary of Comments on October 2014 Draft Plan SAINT PAUL BICYCLE PLAN DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Nancy Homans, Interim Director CITY OF SAINT PAUL 1500 City Hall Annex Fax: 651-266-6222 25 W. Fourth Street Christopher B. Coleman, Mayor Saint Paul, MN 55102-1660 MEMORANDUM FROM: Reuben Collins DATE: 2/9/2015 SUBJECT: Summary of Public Hearing and Recommendations on October 2014 draft Saint Paul Bicycle Plan On December 5, 2014, the Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding the draft Saint Paul Bicycle Plan (SPBP). Since the second draft of the SPBP was released on October 6, 2014, the following statements have been received by city staff. • 33 statements were delivered at the public hearing. • 98 statements were received through the Open Saint Paul online tool. • 42 statements were received via email • 7 Statements were received from other groups or organizations: CapitolRiver Council, District 1 Community Council, Fresh Energy, Friends of the Parks and Trails, Lower Phalen Creek Project, Sierra Club, Smart Trips/Women on Bikes • Saint Paul Area Chamber of Commerce, Saint Paul Building Owners and Managers Association, & Wabasha Partners reiterated their previous statement dated April 1, 2014. In some cases, individuals submitted similar or identical statements through multiple channels. This feedback received is in addition to the feedback received on the first draft of the SPBP between January and April, 2014, when staff received nearly 400 written statements, including statements from 10 District Councils. This is also in addition to the feedback received from the public through several phases of public involvement and outreach since 2011 when the planning process began. Appendix A, B, C, E, and F of the SPBP summarize all of the feedback received since 2011. The statements received were evaluated and subjectively placed into one of the following four categories: An Affirmative Action Equal Opportunity Employer 2/9/2015 Page 2 % of Statement Characterization Statements Received Support the SPBP as is. No recommendations or 40% concerns were stated. Support the SPBP, but offered recommendations for 35% improvement or expressed a concern. Did not specifically state support or opposition to the SPBP, but offered recommendations or expressed a 10% concern. Opposed to the SPBP. 15% The testimony received was generally supportive of the SPBP. Supporters cited reasons such as quality of life, economic development potential, safety, livability, a desire for transportation options, affordability, and health benefits. Those opposed to the SPBP cited reasons such as cost, misguided priorities, and impacts to parking. MAJOR THEMES The following is a list of the most frequent concerns or recommendations raised at the public hearing or received through other channels. • Parking – The largest concern voiced at the public hearing was concern regarding potential loss of parking in downtown due to construction of the downtown loop & spur trail concept proposed in the SPBP. Commenters concerns ranged from a general lack of parking in the downtown area, the need for more convenient parking near retail storefronts, the importance of on-street parking on particular streets such as Wabasha Street, and concerns about the price of parking (too expensive). • Bicycle Parking Ordinance: Numerous individuals voiced concern with Action Item 7.1.1, which recommended that the City consider adopting an ordinance that would prohibit locking bicycles to certain objects in the public right-of-way. Many commenters felt that there is not currently enough bicycle parking, thus resulting in bicycles locked to things other than bike racks. Many felt it was inappropriate to begin restricting bicycle parking options while there exists a deficit of legitimate bike parking options in many locations. • Recommending bikeways on Arterials vs. parallel routes - Several statements questioned the purpose of recommending bikeways be developed along arterials, instead recommending that bikeways be identified on streets with lower motorized traffic volumes. Specific questions were raised regarding Cleveland Avenue and Fairview Avenue. However, these comments are balanced by comments from other individuals stating that not enough of the arterials are represented for bikeways in the SPBP, specifically with reference to West 7th and East 7th. Smart Trips included a recommendation in their statement that “the 2/9/2015 Page 3 addition of more arterials as bicycle routes should be considered”, citing the directness of routes and access to destinations along arterials. • Maintenance – Several comments recommended that the SPBP address winter maintenance procedures. Statements recommended setting minimum maintenance standards or identifying maintenance schedules or procedures. • Update Timeline – Several commenters stated that the recommendation for the SPBP to be updated in 5-7 years was too long a timeframe and that more frequent updating would be desirable. • Citywide traffic speeds and Truck Routes – Several commenters mentioned a desire to consider lowering speed limits throughout the city, or on residential streets, citing safety concerns. Others commented regarding prohibiting truck traffic on certain routes, particularly along Raymond Avenue. • Education, Enforcement, & Encouragement – Several commenters requested that the SPBP address issues of education, encouragement, and enforcement of traffic laws. • Cost – Several commenters expressed concern about cost. Some felt that any investment in bicycle infrastructure is unwarranted and should not be a priority. Others expressed concern about the cost of certain recommendations, the downtown loop & spur in particular. Others were not concerned about the cost, but thought that the planning level cost estimates presented in Section 9.6 overestimated the costs of developing bikeways. • Case Avenue, Jessamine Avenue, and Lawson Avenue – Several commenters mentioned concerns about changes to the east/west routes proposed for the Payne-Phalen neighborhood. The first draft of the SPBP had recommended routes on Case Avenue and Jessamine Avenue. In the second draft of the SPBP, these two routes were removed and replaced by a single planned route on Lawson Avenue. • Prioritization – Several commenters requested additional clarification regarding prioritization strategies. The draft SPBP had identified 15 prioritization principles to be used in helping to identify priorities, however, many felt that they weren’t helpful, or that it wasn’t clear how they would be used to identify potential projects. NEXT STEPS City staff will carefully consider each of the statements received. Staff recommendations regarding each of these major themes will be provided in a separate memorandum. A final draft of the SPBP is anticipated for City Council Adoption in 2015. Attachments Original text or transcription of all written statements received by staff, including: • Planning Commission Public Hearing Approved Minutes • Planning Commission Public Hearing Submitted Materials • District Council Statements • Organization and Group Statements • Individual Statements Received via Email • Individual Statements Received via Open Saint Paul PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING (12/5/2014) APPROVED MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING (12/5/2014) SUBMITTED MATERIALS DISTRICT COUNCIL STATEMENTS Collins, Reuben (CI-StPaul) From: Paul Bengtson <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2014 10:21 AM To: Coleman, Chris (CI-StPaul); Thune, Dave (CI-StPaul) Cc: Collins, Reuben (CI-StPaul); Lindgren, Patricia (CI-StPaul) Subject: The Draft St. Paul Bicycle Plan Mayor Coleman and Councilmember Thune, The CapitolRiver Council has taken the following position on the draft City of St. Paul Bicycle Plan: WHEREAS, the CapitolRiver Council believes a system of safe and convenient bike trails will be an asset to the City of St. Paul, and WHEREAS, the CapitolRiver Council believes that parking is an important factor in the economic viability of Downtown St. Paul, especially for small businesses and retail businesses, and WHEREAS, the City of St. Paul is undertaking a parking study in Downtown St. Paul that is scheduled to be completed in early 2015, BE IT RESOLVED, that the proposed loss of on-street parking in Downtown St. Paul requires further study, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Downtown Bike Loop should promote safe and convenient biking with minimal adverse impact on local, downtown businesses. A representative of the CapitolRiver Council will read this testimony into the record at the Pubic Hearing before the Planning Commission on Friday, December 5th. Sincerely, -- Paul Bengtson CapitolRiver Council 101 E 5th St Suite #240 St Paul, MN 55101 651.221.0488 1 ORGANIZATION AND GROUP STATEMENTS December 7, 2014 Reuben Collins, Project Manager City of Saint Paul 25 West 4th Street 1500 City Hall Annex Saint Paul, MN 55102 Re: Comments on the DRAFT Saint Paul Bicycle Plan Submitted electronically via: [email protected] Dear Mr. Collins: Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments regarding the City of Saint Paul’s DRAFT Bicycle Plan. Fresh Energy appreciates that the City of Saint Paul has prioritized investment in a more connected and balanced bikeways network throughout the city. We’re highly supportive of the vision to “become a world-class bicycling city, accommodating cyclists of all skill levels for both transportation and recreation while encouraging bicycle use as a part of everyday life.” We value that